RE: Proposition to change the prefixing policy


[Florian Rivoal:]
> 
> > I agree on the problems the current prefixes have, but in stead of
> > browser prefixes, woulden't it be better to use draft prefixes like
> > -beta1-flexbox or maybe -23july2009-flexbox? (which I think is not as
> > good as beta1)
> 
> This idea has been floated around for a while, but I am not a fan of it.
> 
> Most importantly, it wouldn't be very different from what we have now in
> some crucial aspects.
> 
> Even though the prefixes would be less branded than they are now, you'd
> still have just the same problem with a lot of content accumulating for
> the prefix that corresponds to the earliest implementation or the most
> popular browser. The browser(s) supporting that particular prefix would
> have the same difficulty about dropping support for then when they get the
> unprefixed properties, and the browsers that don't support it would be
> just as tempted to start supporting that old draft as they now are to
> support the other vendor's prefix.
> 
> On top of that, early implementations often don't follow drafts that
> closely, and authors don't read them much. So authors writing -draft1-foo
> when only browser X implement it would be asking for browser X's behavior
> regardless of whether it conforms to draft1 or not.
> 
> This means that draft prefixes would just be vendor prefixes in disguise.
> Overall, I think this wouldn't really solve anything.
> 
I also find this author-unfriendly; having to cope with 4 vendor prefixes
is painful enough without having to keep up with both 1) which draft said
what and 2) which browsers support which draft(s).

Received on Tuesday, 8 May 2012 07:11:26 UTC